Images have been edited long before photoshop or digital photography came along. Dodge and Burn are terms from film processing, filters were used to change the colours, cross processing changed the way the developed photos looked.
For me it's all about the purpose. If I do photos for hanging them up in my home, there is no question about whether any edit is ethical or not. If it's for journalism or for photography contests, the bar is much higher. There is a lot of grey areas in between. Is something I edit out permanent or temporary? As for colours, it is completely crazy. The eye sees a scene differently to a camera for a start. The same scene can completely change within 5 minutes depending on the weather, sun setting etc.
I, like many, have more iPhone pics than ‘camera’ pics. I also get compliments for my pics - but primarily when viewed on a phone. When asked how did I get such a nice pic, I always say ‘it’s all in the crop’. If 50% of the pic is sky it’s usually the case that reducing the sky content is beneficial and it looks like a panoramic instead of the original rectangle. A little slider action and done. Most often 1/2 the pic is overburden to be cut away. Just like taking 10 pics to get one pic, you take one pic and discard 1/3 or 1/2 of it. The trend in smartphone pics is be able to hide stuff or move subjects around. That’s a bad trend. And then there’s astrophotography with complete color replacement. Filter wheels and stacking 50-100 1 minute exposures etc. Which is why some call all astro and Hubble/JWST pics CGI. It’s a conundrum.
Moving around to catch a really odd angle and capture something that almost no one happens to see is a fun take on reality. But still reality. Saturation contrasts and black point enhancing still legal imo.
"Removing a fence post in real life is probably quite unethical" 😂 I love the idea of armies of "purist photographers " bringing shovels and handsaws to remove unaesthetic elements from rural scenes and then the countryside being flooded with escaped cows, sheep and so on. "Where's the herd gone? Oh it's those bloody photographers again!"
On a more serious note, I tend to agree with your views. If you are not intending to mislead, then I say; go and edit your photos to your taste. Most of the satisfaction I get from photography is to find new ways of seeing the world, you are quite right that wide angle lenses or extreme telephoto lenses are not "true to life" unless you are a Chameleon or an Eagle! So what! Let's bend light and change colours and manipulate pixels, if the result adds something to life and doesn't mislead in a serious way, then what's the problem?
Images have been edited long before photoshop or digital photography came along. Dodge and Burn are terms from film processing, filters were used to change the colours, cross processing changed the way the developed photos looked.
Great points!
For me it's all about the purpose. If I do photos for hanging them up in my home, there is no question about whether any edit is ethical or not. If it's for journalism or for photography contests, the bar is much higher. There is a lot of grey areas in between. Is something I edit out permanent or temporary? As for colours, it is completely crazy. The eye sees a scene differently to a camera for a start. The same scene can completely change within 5 minutes depending on the weather, sun setting etc.
Very good points!
I, like many, have more iPhone pics than ‘camera’ pics. I also get compliments for my pics - but primarily when viewed on a phone.
When asked how did I get such a nice pic, I always say ‘it’s all in the crop’. If 50% of the pic is sky it’s usually the case that reducing the sky content is beneficial and it looks like a panoramic instead of the original rectangle. A little slider action and done.
Most often 1/2 the pic is overburden to be cut away. Just like taking 10 pics to get one pic, you take one pic and discard 1/3 or 1/2 of it.
The trend in smartphone pics is be able to hide stuff or move subjects around. That’s a bad trend.
And then there’s astrophotography with complete color replacement. Filter wheels and stacking 50-100 1 minute exposures etc. Which is why some call all astro and Hubble/JWST pics CGI. It’s a conundrum.
Moving around to catch a really odd angle and capture something that almost no one happens to see is a fun take on reality. But still reality. Saturation contrasts and black point enhancing still legal imo.
Great points!
"Removing a fence post in real life is probably quite unethical" 😂 I love the idea of armies of "purist photographers " bringing shovels and handsaws to remove unaesthetic elements from rural scenes and then the countryside being flooded with escaped cows, sheep and so on. "Where's the herd gone? Oh it's those bloody photographers again!"
On a more serious note, I tend to agree with your views. If you are not intending to mislead, then I say; go and edit your photos to your taste. Most of the satisfaction I get from photography is to find new ways of seeing the world, you are quite right that wide angle lenses or extreme telephoto lenses are not "true to life" unless you are a Chameleon or an Eagle! So what! Let's bend light and change colours and manipulate pixels, if the result adds something to life and doesn't mislead in a serious way, then what's the problem?
"Real photographers carry a chainsaw, why would you content aware fill when you can just cut it down"
It seems that the people who complain most about edited photos are the photographers that own a $3000 camera ??
You're right!